BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Emergency Heroes is a series which features the police and other emergency services responding to actual incidents. The response by a police patrol to a threat from a woman to commit suicide by jumping from a building was dealt with during an item in an episode broadcast on TV3 at 7.30pm on Tuesday 16 February 1999.

Mr R complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast breached a number of broadcasting standards and intruded on the privacy of both the woman and her family. Pointing out that he was the woman’s former husband and father of her three children, he said that she was easily identifiable to acquaintances because of her voice which was heard in the item, and her clothing. A 15 year old son who had seen the programme, he added, now needed ongoing counselling.

Explaining first that the footage had been carefully evaluated before screening, secondly, that the woman’s health provider was aware of the forthcoming broadcast, thirdly, that the item was preceded by a warning advising parental guidance, and fourthly, that the woman was not identifiable, TV3 declined to uphold the complaints.

Dissatisfied with TV3’s decision, Mr R referred his complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaints.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed a tape of the broadcast complained about, and have read the correspondence listed in the Appendix. On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

Emergency Heroes is a "fly on the wall" documentary series which features the police and other emergency services dealing with actual incidents. During the episode broadcast at 7.30pm on 16 February 1999, one item showed the search by the Police for a woman who threatened to jump from a building on the North Shore. When she was found, the broadcast then showed the Police talking to her and, later, taking her away for psychiatric assessment. Her face was blurred in the item.

Mr R complained about the item, explaining that he was the ex-husband of the woman shown, and the father of her three children. He added that one of the children, a 15 year old, had seen the programme and as a result, he was now receiving counselling. Mr R wrote:

The woman concerned was immediately recognisable to all who knew her by her voice and clothing that she was wearing. Her face was blurred, but no attempt was made to disguise her voice.

He alleged that the broadcast not only breached the woman’s and the family’s privacy, but had also contravened standards G12, G17, V12 and V16 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

In regard to the privacy question, Mr R in his letter to TV3 wrote:

I am also concerned over the privacy issue because the woman was easily recognisable (I have spoken to numerous people who recognised her not only from the programme but also just from the advertisement for the programme that was on screen earlier in the day). I believe that you have not maintained standards which are consistent with the privacy of the individual or the individual family.

Mr R also sent a copy of his formal complaint to the Authority and, on the privacy matter, he repeated the points cited above.

TV3 responded to the Authority on the privacy issue, and to Mr R directly on the standards matters. In both letters, it wrote:

The programme "Emergency Heroes" follows emergency rescue services and Police while they go about their day-to-day work and as such it documents the conditions that they must face, and sometimes the darker side of New Zealand society. The intention of "Emergency Heroes" is to help the general public gain a perspective of the type of incidents and stresses the Police and rescue staff are subjected to, and the often unseen roles they perform.

Dealing with the privacy question, TV3 explained that a police liaison officer had been present when the filming took place, and that the footage had been checked later by the police, a police lawyer, and a TV3 appraiser. Further, it recalled, Waitemata Health (the woman’s primary health provider) had been advised of – and accepted – the dates on which the Emergency Heroes team would be filming. TV3 observed that none of the organisations involved had intended to cause distress to the woman and TV3 thought the steps taken and approvals gained "were more than adequate".

Moreover, TV3 pointed out that the film makers were not aware that the woman had a mental health case history. It was the film maker’s policy not to film where a hospital had instigated a search but that did not apply in the present case as the different phone calls received by the police had come from the woman herself or her friends.

Finally, in setting the context of the broadcast, TV3 pointed out the series Emergency Heroes was rated PGR and the specific episode complained about was preceded by a written and verbal warning which stated:

WARNING. The following programme may not be suitable for younger family members and parental guidance is advised.

Turning to the specific issue of the woman’s privacy in the item, TV3 argued that the woman was not identified, explaining: "Her face, and that of her friend, is blurred and her name and details were removed." While the woman’s intimate friends might suspect her identity, TV3 averred that the item did not confirm such suspicions. Intimate friends who did identify her, TV3 contended, would have done so because they were aware of the incident portrayed. The item thus had not disclosed any private information to them. TV3 summarised:

Any other person ie the "reasonable" member of the general public would not have been able to identify X from the footage shown and could not subsequently identify her as the woman from Emergency Heroes . The filming took place in a public place - in the carpark on the top of a shopping mall where the public have free access. X is never identified and the "private facts" of her threatened suicide cannot be linked to her.

TV3 declined to uphold the privacy complaint in regard to the woman shown. Because of the minimal details about the women contained in the item, TV3 insisted that it would be impossible to identify any of her children. Accordingly, it added, their privacy had not been breached.

TV3 assessed the standards complaint under the nominated standards: G12, G17, V12 and V16 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Standard G12 requires broadcasters:

G12  To be mindful of the effect any programme may have on children during their normally accepted viewing times.

The other standards read:

G17  Unnecessary intrusion in the grief and distress of victims and their families or friends must be avoided. Funeral coverage should reflect sensitivity and understanding for the feelings and privacy of the bereaved.

Broadcasters must avoid causing unwarranted distress by showing library tape of bodies or human remains which could cause distress to surviving family members. Where possible, family members should be consulted before the material is used. This standard is not intended to prevent the use of material which adds significantly to public understanding of an issue which is in the public arena and interest.

V12  The treatment in news, current affairs and documentary programmes of violent and distressing material calls for careful editorial discernment as to the extent of graphic detail carried. Should the use of violent and distressing material be considered relevant and essential to the proper understanding of the incident or event being portrayed, an appropriate prior warning must be considered.

Particular care must be taken with graphic material which portrays especially disturbing images, such as:

ill-treatment of people or animals

close-ups of dead and mutilated bodies of people or animals

views of people in extreme pain or distress, or at the moment of death

violence directed at children or children in distress

Material shown in late evening may be more graphic than that shown during general viewing times.

V16  Broadcasters must be mindful of the effect any programme, including trailers, may have on children during their generally accepted viewing periods, usually up to 8.30pm, and avoid screening material which could unnecessarily disturb or alarm children.

After repeating the points noted above about the purpose of the programme, the vetting process, and the warning issued on this occasion, TV3 turned to the standard G12 matter.

Pointing out that the requirement in the standard referred to children generally - not to a specific child - TV3 maintained that the item was neither excessively graphic nor upsetting for children subject to the guidance of a parent or care-giver.

As for standard G17, TV3 expressed the opinion that this was relevant only where a person suffers some kind of physical harm or injury. In this instance, however, TV3 commented that the unidentified woman, although apparently mentally disturbed, received the appropriate treatment and suffered no injury. Further, TV3 noted, the main focus of the item was the search for the woman rather than the events after she had been located.

TV3 considered that standard V12 had not been breached as that standard referred specifically to violent and distressing material. In this case, the police were shown to be generally caring and they had helped the woman in distress.

As for standard V16, TV3 argued that the item was appropriately rated PGR.

TV3 declined to uphold any aspect of the standards complaint.

When he referred the standards complaint to the Authority, Mr R said he had not seen the warning as he had missed the start of the programme. Nevertheless, as 7.30pm was normal viewing time for children, he questioned whether it was appropriate for PGR programmes to be screened at that hour.

Dealing with the specific standards, Mr R maintained that the wording of standard G12 meant that it referred both to children generally, and to any child specifically. As for standard G17, Mr R focussed on the requirement for consultation with families where possible. On this occasion, he wrote, TV3 had not contacted him as father of the woman’s children.

The woman shown in the item, Mr R maintained, was in "extreme distress", the situation contemplated in standard V12, and thus the programme should not have been broadcast before 8.30pm.

As the programme caused distress and alarm to his children and to the children of the woman’s friends and family, Mr R wrote, it was inappropriately rated PGR and in contravention of standard V17. Mr R concluded:

"Overall, apart from the privacy issue which is totally separate, my main complaint is that I was given no opportunity to state my views before the screening of this programme, or to make sure that no member of the victim’s family was watching it."

"The programme has had a profound effect on the children, and the way they feel about and interact with their mother. The victim is still recovering in the hospital, and at times I have difficulty getting the children even to visit, due in no small part to the opinion they have of her as a result of seeing her wanting to throw herself from a building."

In its report to the Authority,TV3 repeated its view that standards G12 and V16 applied to children generally, rather than to a specific child. It maintained that the woman had suffered no harm or injury and was not, in Mr R’s term, a "victim". It also reiterated its views that the PGR rating was appropriate.

R R did not respond to the Authority’s invitation to make a final comment on the complaints.

The Authority’s Findings

Emergency Heroes is a series which features police and emergency services involved in real life New Zealand incidents. The series discloses the range of varied tasks carried out by these organisations. The segment involved in this complaint dealt with the police response to a threat from a woman to commit suicide by jumping from a building. The complainant is the woman’s former husband and he has complained on his behalf, and on behalf of their three children. He alleges that the broadcast breached the privacy of the woman and the family, and contravened standards G12, G17, V12 and V16 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

The Authority assesses the privacy complaint pursuant to the Privacy Principles issued in 1996 under which it examines complaints which allege that a broadcaster has failed to maintain standards consistent with the privacy of an individual as provided in s.4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Before these principles apply, an essential requirement is that the broadcast discloses the identity of an individual and, on this occasion, TV3 argued that the woman would not have been identifiable because her face was blurred. Moreover, it contended, intimate friends who could have identified her would have known of the incident shown and, thus, the item disclosed no private facts about her.

The Authority has ruled in past decisions when dealing with the issue of identity, that identity is revealed if the person would be recognised by friends, neighbours and acquaintances. As recognition to this extent is possible through clothing, voice and deportment, the Authority repeats the point made in previous decisions that the blurring of the person’s face in itself is usually an insufficient basis on which to claim that a person’s identity has not been revealed.

In the present situation, because of the visuals and the details given, the Authority is firmly of the view that, despite the blurring of the face, the woman who threatened to jump from a building would likely to have been identifiable to a wider group than just family and intimate friends.

The Authority now proceeds to assess the complaint under the relevant Privacy Principles which, in this situation, are principles (i) and (iii). They provide:

i) The protection of privacy includes protection against the public disclosure of private facts when the facts disclosed are highly offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.

iii) There is a separate ground for complaint, in addition to a complaint for the public disclosure of private and public facts, in factual circumstances involving the intentional interference (in the nature of prying) with an individual’s interest in solitude or seclusion. The intrusion must be offensive to the ordinary person but an individual’s interest in solitude or seclusion does not provide the basis for a privacy action for an individual to complain about being observed or followed or photographed in a public place.

The next essential matter to be considered is the place where the incident dealt with in the item occurred. The woman was approached by the police, and filmed, on the roof of a car park building. The Authority accepts that this was a public place. It was not in the woman’s house or garden, or that of her family or friends. For the purposes of the Privacy Principles, the Authority considers that her conduct in these circumstances was not a private fact.

On this basis, the Authority considers that principle (i) was not infringed. Nor is the Authority persuaded that principle (iii) applies in this case. There was no intrusion in the nature of prying which would ordinarily be regarded as offensive.

Turning to the standards, the Authority agrees with TV3's interpretation of standard G12. In the Authority's opinion, it would be quite unreasonable to expect a broadcaster to be mindful of the effect of a programme on each child individually. The Authority accepts that TV3 met its responsibility to children generally by rating the programme PGR, and preceding its broadcast with a written and verbal warning.

The Authority disagrees with TV3 when it submitted that standard G17 is relevant only when a broadcast shows a person who had suffered physical harm or injury. On the contrary, the Authority interprets the standard as being intended to include, and refer to, the families and friends of those who suffer from mental illness. Thus, the question for the Authority under standard G17 was whether the segment intruded unnecessarily into the distress of the woman’s family.

The Authority accepts that the portrayal of the woman may have caused distress to members of her family. However, there was nothing in the programme which sought to portray that distress or to exploit it in anyway. It considers that the standard has not been breached.

Standard V12 is listed in the Code relating to the Portrayal of Violence and focuses on the extent that a broadcast contains "graphic detail". The item on Emergency Heroes did not include such graphic material as contemplated by the standard, and that aspect is not upheld.

Finally, R R argued that standard V16 had been infringed. This standard is designed to cover broadcasts where the violence portrayed might unnecessarily disturb children if the programme is screened before 8.30pm. The Authority considers that in this case this aspect of the complaint raises the same issues which it assessed when ruling on the standard G12 matter. It reaches the same decision as it arrived on the standard G12 issue, and declines to uphold the standard V16 complaint.

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

The Authority observes that programmes such as this, handled responsibly, may serve a useful purpose in educating the public in such matters as mental illness and furthering understanding of the social problems it highlights.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority.

Sam Maling
Chairperson
24 June 1999

Appendix

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1. Mr R’s Formal Complaint to TV3 Network Services Ltd – 8 March 1999

2. Mr R’s Privacy Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 8 March 1999

3. TV3’s Acknowledgment to the Authority of the Privacy Complaint – 19 March 1999

4. TV3’s Response on the Standards Complaint to Mr R – 9 April 1999

5. TV3’s Response to the Privacy Complaint to the Authority – 15 April 1999

6. Mr R’s Referral of the Standards Complaint to the Authority – 19 April 1999

7. TV3’s Response to the Authority – 10 May 1999

8. Mr R did not accept the invitation to respond to TV3’s comments